Zondervan, the TNIV, and Gender
Zondervan announced today that it would be releasing a new version of the the NIV translation of the Bible in 2011, eliminating the publication of the TNIV. The TNIV has been around since 2002, and was published as a “gender accurate” translation that eliminated masculine or feminine nouns and pronouns that were unsupported by original manuscripts. Since it came out, it has been showered with criticisms. Conservatives said it undermined the trustworthiness of the Bible with James Dobson saying that it diluted “the masculinity intended by the authors of Scripture” and resulted in “obscuring the fatherhood of God.” And now apparently Zondervan agrees with their critics (or at least desperately wants their business). Maureen Girkins, president of Zondervan, now says that “The T-NIV is very divisive. It’s not a unifying translation… We need to undo the damage.” This means examining the gender-related translations decisions and as hinted at, possibly returning to the 1984 non-gender sensitive version.
I am seriously disappointed in Zondervan for making this decision. Douglas Moo, chairman of the Committee on Bible Translation, says that for the new version they desire to “make sure we are putting God’s unchanging word into English people are actually using.” But honestly, how can they do that if antiquated masculine pronouns are all that are used? Children these days do not learn an English that uses male pronouns as the generic form or speech. The language the majority of Americans actually use is gender inclusive, that is just the way things are. I recall a professor I knew who worked on Bible translations share that what changed his mind about the necessity of gender inclusive language for translations was when his daughter asked him why only boys could be Christians. Her Bible used male pronouns and terms like “son of God,” and as a modern American she had no idea that such language was meant to include girls as well. Forget whether gender-inclusive language is the fair or the just way to translate the Bible, it’s practical in our day and age.
So to have the anti-female voices of Grudem, and Dobson, and Piper and their followers win out disturbs me. It is just one more example how for many Christians one of the central aspects of their faith is the subjugation of women. I know there are other accurate and appropriate Bible translations available, but none with the reach as the NIV. It is the powerhouse, it’s the translation of choice for evangelicalism. I grew up with the NIV, and since it’s publication have used the TNIV. It is those words that I know by heart, and it feels like a betrayal to have Zondervan proclaim that I as a woman matter so little.
So how do you respond? What translation do you use? How does gender-inclusive language affect your reading of scripture?
Tags: Bible, gender inclusive, TNIV, Zondervan
September 1st, 2009 at 1:52 pm
“So to have the anti-female voices of Grudem, and Dobson, and Piper and their followers win out disturbs me. It is just one more example how for many Christians one of the central aspects of their faith is the subjugation of women.”
Yes, that’s what these men think. They wake up thinking, “how can I be anti-female today. Boy I sure am obsessed with subjugating women”. I see them now in their secret man caves, rubbing their hands together, trying to work out ways to twist scripture to hate women.
Or, perhaps they think they are honoring God and His Word. Perhaps they think they are making the world a better place and, in fact, helping women by trying to confirm people to the will of God. Perhaps they are doing good.
But no that can’t be, the must be evil. Anyone who doesn’t agree with you must be evil.
September 1st, 2009 at 1:52 pm
I use the TNIV for my daily devotions and all the scripture references in my blog. I love the translation, but am eager to see what Zondervan does to update it. You made some excellent points, but I’m not horribly pessimistic that all the gender-accurate language is going to go.
Also, I was a bit surprised when you classified the voices of Piper, Grudem, and Dobson as “anti-female”. Regardless of how some may use their words as leverage to subjugate women, I believe that they have righteous hearts and intentions. I also think labeling such influential men that way mostly serves to divide the Church in an age where we really can’t afford that.
But I really do value your insights. Thanks so much for this important post!
September 1st, 2009 at 1:53 pm
I am disappointed. I am somewhat shocked. This is my translation of choice. As a Pastor to Children and Families, this is the Bible translation i use with the children at my church. Today is a sad, sad day. Shame on Zondervan!
September 1st, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Ridiculous. Please, what are we worshiping? The very act of translating something negates the idea that it is also somehow “unchanging.” Language changes all the time, and there’s no intra-biblical hermeneutic for how huge for-profit publishing companies ought to ‘discern’ how to preserve original meaning. For the love of God, translations are, themselves, interpretation. Do people really not understand this? Does Zondervan really not understand this? Unbelievable.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:04 pm
This is exactly why when I see something is published by Zondervan I think twice about buying it. Really a rotten thing to do, and even worse reasoning and explanation. The fact that they feel they are ‘correcting’ something is just terrible.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Disappointing and upsetting. I’ve never been a Zondervan fan (or an NIV fan for that matter); that aside, this is ridiculous. Hopefully more people will clout will press them on this, they need to be held accountable.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:26 pm
This is heartbreaking… reading the TNIV has been so liberating for my husband and I. The church has gone to great lengths to exclude women where Scripture has not. We need translations that reflect that “there is no male nor female.”
September 1st, 2009 at 2:49 pm
I too have always thought twice before buying something by Zondervan – will have to think much much longer from now on. Would like to hear Chris’ thoughts after spending a year having his intelligence, understanding and leadership abilities discounted simply because of his gender. Perhaps then he will understand the evil.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Definitely disappointed….I LOVED the T-NIV and was hoping that it would someday come to replace the NIV which, in addition to having outdated language is incredibly “clunky” and awkward most of the time.
Also, Mike wrote the following: “I was a bit surprised when you classified the voices of Piper, Grudem, and Dobson as “anti-female”. Regardless of how some may use their words as leverage to subjugate women, I believe that they have righteous hearts and intentions. I also think labeling such influential men that way mostly serves to divide the Church in an age where we really can’t afford that.”
Two things: 1) Little “leverage” is needed to use the words of Piper, Grudem, et. al. to subjugate women. They do that on their own just fine with the help of others. 2) It isn’t the critique of these men and others that is harmful and divisive, it’s their influence that causes the division in the first place.
I just love how if some Christians who want the bible translated accurately (i.e. with gender-inclusivity) critique conservative fundamentalists they’re labeled as being “divisive” and harmful. But should a conservative ever critique someone who prefers a gender-inclusive translation, they’re supposedly fighting for a righteous, God-centered cause.
What a double-standard, what a crock. What the church can’t afford is to ignore the twisting of the word of God to a narrow, male-centered, political and (frankly) un-Christian ideology. The T-NIV was a vast improvement over the innaccuracies and narrow ideological bent of the NIV and I think Zondervan is making a huge mistake in discontinuing it.
A.T.
September 1st, 2009 at 3:07 pm
“The TNIV has been around since 2002, and was published as a “gender accurate” translation that eliminated masculine or feminine nouns and pronouns that were unsupported by original manuscripts.”
The point here is really about good translation. If the original manuscripts don’t specify male gender, then neither should the translation. Case closed.
To argue that a gendered pronoun should be used where there is none indicated in the original text is to argue for corruption of the text. Period. Add to it all the well-known political and theological debates around gender roles in the church, and what this move communicates is pretty clear… a subjugation of clear and accurate translations to contemporary church politics. This is hardly a new thing in the church, but it is definitely not good.
September 1st, 2009 at 3:19 pm
The simple fact of the matter is that any translation of the Bible should agree with the original manuscripts in every way possible. If the TNIV eliminated unsupported gender pronouns, then that is exactly what should have been done. Greek, after all, has a gender-neutral third-person singular pronoun, and English does not. However, if pronouns were made gender-neutral not because the manuscripts were likewise gender-neutral, but in order to avoid offending potential readers or in order to be politically correct, then Zondervan is no longer translating, but instead intentionally modifying the Bible, and such should not be its role. Similarly, if the original manuscripts were more in line with TNIV and Zondervan is changing the wording back to fit political goals instead of the original text, then it is likewise at fault.
If the original Hebrew and Greek text uses masculine or feminine pronouns, then masculine or feminine pronouns should, indeed must, be used in English by a responsible translator. If the gender-neutral pronouns are used in the original text, then they should and must be used in the English. If someone disagrees with the use of such pronouns, either inclusive or exclusive, then that person simply disagrees with the Bible. Plenty of people disagree with the Bible. However, if one disagrees with what the Bible says, then one must simply admit that he or she does not believe what the Bible says – not change the Bible to fit personal whims. One should not make the Bible more or less gender-inclusive than it truly is and always has been.
You mention “Son of God” as being a sticking point for a gender-exclusive phrase used in the Bible. I ask – with what would you replace it? (In this, I mean no rhetorical question, and indeed request an answer). Perhaps one could use “Child of God” instead – but insisting upon this would be akin to insisting upon never referring to your male child as your son or your female child as your daughter. The simple fact exists that Jesus was a male, and therefore we refer to Him as God’s Son. That in particular has nothing to do with excluding females, it is simply the act of using a male pronoun to refer to a male individual.
Your issue should not be with the gender-identification of the TNIV. A deeper concern is the fact that the NIV is fundamentally a flawed translation, going so far as to intentionally alter the content of text so that it disagrees completely with the originals but fits Protestant theology.
I agree with a commenter who states that translations are themselves interpretations. The surest course is to learn Hebrew and Koine and to read printings of the original, untranslated text. To do anything short is to accept some interpretation or other, conservative or liberal, both equally flawed and potentially blasphemous, instead of only the will of God. Of course, this is impossible or impractical for most people, and thus, we must sadly rely upon these pathetic translations, subject to so much worthless political banter.
-bhhm
September 1st, 2009 at 3:24 pm
A lot of modern English translations are gender inclusive anyway (e.g., the NCV, REB, NRSV, GNB, Message, CEV, GW, NIRV, and NLT), so the only thing we’re losing is the marriage of gender inclusive language and the NIV (aside from the NIRV), assuming all the gender inclusive language is really thrown out. Plus, if Zondervan is still willing to license the translation, other publishers could publish their own TNIVs.
September 1st, 2009 at 4:18 pm
I don’t know how this works exactly but doesn’t the IBS actually own the copyright to the TNIV? Zondervan can decide which version of the bible it wants to publish, they are a business. They can even decide to fund a new version of the NIV to support the theological bent of their customer base. Whatever they do, the TNIV will still exist, it just needs enough demand for a publisher to be willing to print it.
September 1st, 2009 at 6:04 pm
read the TNIV as my main translation, and have been thrilled with Zondervan for their advocacy for it. Reading between the lines it seems like what is really happening is NOT the dropping of the TNIV, but the folding of the TNIV back into the “NIV” as the “T” has become toxic because Zondervan didn’t handle the creation and marketing of the TNIV very well and it made some very influential people crazy.
Check it out for yourselves, good quotes from the chairman of the translation committee:
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2009/09/breaking_transl.html
September 1st, 2009 at 8:54 pm
Wow. I’m almost speechless. As a first generation immigrant, I find the ‘Amercan arrogance’ phenomenon a bit trying at times, but you guys take the cake! When I read the article and the ensuing supportive comments, I found myself flabbergasted at the ridiculous, politically correct, narcissistic attitudes you seem to project without a second thought; can I ask when the gospel of feminism trumped the gospel of Christ? Or when human philosophical notions outweighed the sovereignty of God? Is God behind the times? Do you think he needs to be apprised of the current political landscape in order to adjust his word accordingly? From the information here, you seem to imply that God just didn’t think through the political/social implications of the ‘overuse’ of the male pronoun–how tragic and unfortunate that God is not more forward thinking.
September 2nd, 2009 at 12:45 am
I only realised how anti-female Grudem is when I recently listened to a podcast of his. I was aghast that he was saying that, not only shouldn’t women speak in church or participate in teaching but, if while a man is in the process of teaching error a woman shouldn’t correct him. Instead, she should turn to a man and prompt him to make the correction.
At the time of listening I was on the underground, on my way to work. It took all the energy I had not to scream out from under my headphones.
I thought his stance was abhorrent but then I heard the women who were in the room (and who were permitted to talk by their husbands – and I say that advisedly) also agree with him. He has managed to somehow pacify these women to the extent that they subjugate themselves and other women around them.
Sorry that I haven’t really made a contribution about translations. I have been wanted to make the point and have been unable to do so in the church community/tradition I belong to as so many hold the same view as Grudem. Sadly I am coming to the end of my time at seminary preparing for ministry but I have almost completely let go of the possibility of that ever happening.
I also still in the process of healing from some of the anti-female comments that I have heard over the past three years.
September 2nd, 2009 at 1:38 am
For as long as the latest one will not go beyond the boundaries of its original text, why not? What is important is, the “message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ” is being preached around the world. We really need some “Good News” these days.
September 2nd, 2009 at 7:10 am
I am glad. The Translators of the TNIV broke their word in a signed agreement years prior. Yet, I think the real reason they are abandoning the TNIV is because it sold poorly, not because this is a good translation of the Greek and Hebrew. I was disappointed that after they agreed not to produce a “gender neutral” or a less rich and accurate text, that they would go back on their word and exchange trust for marketing. I am glad, now, that many said that your word and accuracy is more important than making a political statement. Yet, I think this is merely because the sales of the TNIV were horrible.
September 2nd, 2009 at 9:20 am
I find it telling from the comments here why a financial move like eliminating language that included women looked attractive to Zondervan. The Bible includes both men and women, it isn’t changing scripture to include us gals, but that is apparently the lie some believe. The english language is shifting and so translations shift – this isn’t a “new” word of God or anything silly like that, it is just keeping our language accurate. Since the generic male pronoun is fading out of usage in English, it is just normal that translation reflect that. But instead, we get accused of making political statements (although the idea that women are people too is hardly political), called whiny, or told we support inaccurate Bible translations. so apparently Zondervan would have a wide audience to sell such a un-accurate politicized text that ignores women to.
September 2nd, 2009 at 9:33 am
Oh let’s be honest with ourselves. You were whining about how girls feel the bible isn’t fair to them. The scripture is the scripture. You don’t change the scripture.
Changing the bible to suit our gender is correcting God. As high and mighty as you may think of yourself, you’re no where near as great as God.
The issues are not what is written in the text. The text should be as accurate to the original as possible. The issues (the ones you seem to have) are in the way the scripture is taught. Go after the ones who teach us that women have no voice in church. But for heaven’s sake, don’t go changing the book.
September 2nd, 2009 at 9:40 am
Julie,
I think you miss the point. The Greek is more specific in the areas of Gender than the English can be, for you to criticize some English translations could be said about the Greek and even moreso.
The TNIV, though, went a step beyond making gender neutral but inputing a political ideology into a Biblical translation as has never been done, while just a few years prior saying they would never produce such a translation. If they had given their word and broke it, why trust them?
No one is saying the Bible only is applicable to men. People are saying that you cannot change some of the gender in the text without being more confusing and more innacurate. The HCSB, in many places chose a gender neutral version where it did not confuse meaning or syntax. Yet, few on the liberal wing rushed to support the Bible because of who translated it. The TNIV replaced gender neutrality for accuracy all the while breaking a written promise. I think we can all agree that they should have stuck by their word.
September 2nd, 2009 at 9:57 am
Methinks I am getting old; I find that I have less tolerance for stupidity and political correctness, and am becoming more vocal about it as the years go by. It’s painfully obvious that most of the feminist fascists who frequent this site have had absolutely no training in critical thinking, and even less in apologetics. From the information gathered here, it is painfully evident that the authority of God’s word is no longer the standard for divining ‘truth;’ God’s truth is now measured by how it conforms to feminist ideology.
Those of you who view the world through the oh-so-prevalent politically correct, left-leaning, over-propagandized filter of American entitlement fail to see how damaging and counterproductive your willful ignorance really is; the implcation here is that God failed to preserve an accurate representation of his word to us and in accordance with this oversight should subjugate himself to our selfish demands. In essence, it is an attempted elevation of man to a God-like status and a castration and emasculation of God himself.
…you might want to stay off the golf course during the next thunderstorm…..
September 2nd, 2009 at 10:10 am
I think you miss my point. I am not criticizing the Greek for not being English or whatever. If we know that the Greek intended an inclusive meaning, to translate it into a language where inclusivity is not intended or is at least ambiguous isn’t accurate. This isn’t entitlement or propaganda, but the way things are. We have to translate scripture – we have to impose our interpretation of language onto the scripture. This isn’t an insult to God or a denial of truth, but the only way to be faithful followers.
People can call us names and make death wishes against us if you like, but that is really not productive or evidence of a decent critical conversation. It would be appreciated if we could discuss the issues and not spew such hate.
and btw – God doesn’t have a penis.
September 2nd, 2009 at 10:27 am
Julie
How can an English Bible be condemned for saying that since the Greek is in the masculine that we should make the English Masculine? You said we have to impose our interpretation, but while there are verses that are controversial, it is not an interpretation but merely translating to call a masculine word a masculine word. The Greek is not ambiguous in gender. I have had 5 post-graduate classes in New Testament Greek, and gender is an important part of the text, in translating, and in understanding it. Yes, we do lose something in the text but I find it harder to say you are more accurate to the Bible when you purposefully change the text.
Yet, you did not join me in condemning Zondervan for “giving their word” and then breaking their word. This is neither interpretation nor translation, this is dishonesty.
Finally, I am not making death threats. I am not making hate speech. I merely am saying that the burden of proof in translation is in changing the text, not in those who wish to remain as faithful as possible to the Greek. Those who supported the TNIV did so out of an agenda, not out of a desire to be more accurate to the text, for I do not think a case can be made that the TNIV is more accurate, only that it has a political/social agenda. There have been liberals who have produced solid and dynamic translations of the Bible. The TNIV, though, is not a translation I think people will argue is accurate, just political.
September 2nd, 2009 at 10:27 am
Oh, and btw, Jesus did have a penis and Jesus is God.
September 2nd, 2009 at 11:03 am
I use the Nestle Aland Greek text (27th edition) personally and the LXX for old testament (I’m only 22 and I have just taken lots of Greek and no Hebrew) but for English translations I prefer the NASB or the NRSV (ESV is acceptable also) but I do not think we should translate in the name of gender equality Jesus’ title as ”Son of God” or ”Son of Man” to ”child of God or Man”(which some fringe persons say). Even the so called conservative ESV uses gender neutral language in English where the text isn’t clear and where they have a clear theological belief (you have Wayne Grudem there so it is to be expected) they make theological interpretations to how a text is to be translated. I personally never like the NIV or the TNIV for reading, preaching (hearing preached from), praying, teaching, etc… I do appreciate the linguistic legacy that the KJV has left the English speaking world which the NRSV and ESV take the structure from- It just sounds a bit different! That is of course based on my theological belief on the emphesis of the creator-creation disctinction… anyway we should not be angry nor happy until we see the final product (both egalatarians and complementarians!). But I never liked the translation philosophy of Zondorvan to begin with- I believe the Bible ought to be as word for word as possible and where there is a cultural cap… thats why we have study bibles and preaching!
September 2nd, 2009 at 11:26 am
I require the NRSV in Bible courses that I teach in a university setting. Indeed, it is a departmental policy at my institution. Since one of the topics that we cover is the act of translation as interpretation, the NRSV Translation Committee practices become a topic of class discussion and learning. We frequently pay attention to NRSV translation footnotes and translation notes in the annotations so that we understand the decisions that translators have to make. I also prefer the NRSV in liturgical settings, since I do not wish to propagate androcentrism in church. In my private study I prefer the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, or if I don’t have those, the old RSV. For those times I want a translation that preserves the original–even the original androcentric language–so that I can dope out the significance of the language for myself.
September 2nd, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Ouch! Call me crazy, but I think this looks suspiciously like the pot calling the kettle black….and I’d really like to know how you managed to see God naked?
(Because I am a big girl now, I won’t dignify that childish death threat comment with a response. As a responsible adult I’ll return to the issue we are supposed to be discussing.)
In accordance with my previous comments, I beg the question “Who are we to tell God that he has failed us?” If all scripture is given by divine inspiration, I would find it difficult to believe that God just ‘overlooked’ a more gender-inclusive vocabulary. If God defined himself as a ‘he,’ I’m thinkin’ he would probably know…
My guess is that most of you haven’t even read ‘The TNIV and the Gender Neutral Bible Controversy’ or your arguments would be a little more intelligent and studied. (How typical of the feminist agenda to criticize someone on a personal level instead of discussing the underlying issues.) While there are many areas where I disagree with Grudem as well, I have to concede that the evidence he presents is both compelling and logical. Profit and loss are not the only reasons to abandon the translation. Interpretation, clarity, context–not to mention the outrageous arrogance in telling God that he doesn’t understand women.
Most die-hard feminists like to blame men for their supposed oppression. As a woman who is obviously older than the majority of the children represented here, my life experience has made me face up to some cold,hard facts; we taught others how to treat us, so why are we blaming men for something we caused all by our little own-selves? There is no man in this world who has treated me with the deliberate cruelty I’ve encountered at the hands of womenkind–particularly those who claim to be Christians. (Frankly, the women in positions of leadership are usually the worst.) We have been oppressed because we don’t value each other–it’s not a male conspiracy.
September 2nd, 2009 at 12:57 pm
“and btw – God doesn’t have a penis”
Jesus is God, and Jesus had one. Can you name for me one of the persons in the Trinity that has a vagina?
September 2nd, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Derek and EK,
Are you worshiping Christ’s divinity or Christ’s masculinity? If you are worshiping Christ’s masculinity, you are guilty of idolatry.
God is neither male nor female. Period.
September 2nd, 2009 at 6:56 pm
I think Michael (#14) is right that the new NIV is going to be an update of the TNIV rather than a reversal of the gender-inclusive language in the TNIV. Because one of my friends spoke to a senior editor at Zondervan and that’s what the editor told him. That’s also Scot McKnight’s understanding based on what he’s read.
September 2nd, 2009 at 10:47 pm
Wow! Really?! Did you really just say that? Wow!
September 2nd, 2009 at 10:49 pm
And does God the Father or God the Holy Spirit also have one?
September 2nd, 2009 at 11:02 pm
Question 1: To take just one example, if Paul addresses his letters to the “brethren” (assuming that the original greek word actually is similarly gendered), does that term also include women, or was Paul deliberately excluding women? To put it another way: do Paul’s letters also apply to women, or just to men?
Question 2: Supposing we agree that by the use of “brethren” Paul meant to include both men and women, what is the most accurate way to convey that meaning in an English translation (given the fact that modern English speakers generally no longer use masculine terms inclusively for both men and women): a) as “brothers” or b) “brothers and sisters”? I.e. which rendering best captures Paul’s intent?
Despite the accusations being made by two or three of you here about us “liberals” and “feminist fascists”, the real issue at stake here for many of us is not some kind of “political correctness” or “liberal agenda”, but simply a question of accurately rendering scriptural intent. There are many of us who simply feel that translation option (b) above is the most accurate way to reflect the Bible’s meaning and intent. I, for one, have a hard time believing that Paul did not mean to include women or that his letters only apply to men, and therefore I think a gender-accurate translation like the TNIV is the best way to go, at least for liturgical purposes.
September 2nd, 2009 at 11:02 pm
Dom,
I am surprised that you would accuse me of such a thing. I am worshiping God, but in order to not make God in another image (a violation of the 2nd commandment) I must worship Him in the manner in which He revealed Himself in the pages of the Bible.
Jesus, thus, was a Jewish man who lived in Galilee. That means I am not worshiping a Roman Soldier from Greece. I am not worshiping Jesus’ Jewishness but to deny His Jewishness is to deny the Jesus as revealed in the Bible. As well, I am not worshiping his Gender, but to deny His gender is to deny the Jesus revealed in the Bible.
We are to worship God in how God is revealed or else we do not worship God and we are in violation of the 2nd Commandment.
Now, to ask you the obvious question, “Are you worshiping God or a created (by your own imagination) image of God?”
September 2nd, 2009 at 11:35 pm
Mike,
The vast majority of the time, God is revealed in the masculine. Yes, there are some minor times He is given feminine attributes, but so are some other men in the Bible.
Yet, my statement was to a person who wanted to make some sort of a point, of which I am not sure what point she was attempting, by saying God did not have a penis. To that, my response was both truthful but humorous. I think it showed the shallowness of such a line of questioning without forcing me to make make a definitive point, except the obvious in that Jesus came to earth as a male.
You seem to focus on a couple of words but I am not sure you have entered the debate. The TNIV does change the gender of some words that even Biblical Scholars agree can be changed. They also turn singular words into the plural in order and change other vital things in the text. As well, in order to make it gender neutral, the work changes the meaning entirely. Take, for instance, this verse:
NIV: I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book:If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.
TNIV: I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll:If anyone of you adds anything to them, God will add to you the plagues described in this scroll.
The NIV is closer to the real meaning. The TNIV is rather funny. The verse now says that if anyone of you adds to the Word of God, then “YOU” will have plagues added. Rather, the TNIV should say “he” the specify the person who commits the act will get the punishment, not you specifically. There are places all over like this. Changing the 3rd person to the 2nd person changes the meaning and is inaccurate.
The same goes with the changing in Proverbs. To understand Proverbs, you must understand it is a father’s advise to his sons. Yet, that is not what you get out of the text as it is a “parent’s” advise to a “child”. Granted, I think much of the advise could be given to women, but some cannot. You lose the depth of the text by making it gender neutral and texts in Proverbs 7 and 31 (as well as other chapters) lose their full impact. The depth of insight in Proverbs is amazing when you understand the full context, the TNIV hides this context. I love Proverbs specifically because I have spoken and written much on this book and hiding the gender does not help (and hurts) in some places.
I could go on and on and on but greater scholars than myself have reviewed these in other places.
So, I think it is important. There are some places I think we could agree could be changed. As mentioned, The HSCB did include such areas in their translation (though, I do not like the translation, no one doubts this is a decent translation, moreso than the TNIV).
Thanks for reading and now back to our show.
September 3rd, 2009 at 3:28 am
I was smack dab in the middle of my reply when my demon-possessed cursor raced off the page and everything disappeared. It was so very tempting to say that I only experience this phenomenon while visiting your site, but then you would undoubtedly pretend I was serious and use my comments as an excuse to falsely attribute an intentional prejudice on my part. (insert exaggerated eye-roll here__) Until I hear otherwise Mike, I’m going to have to assume that either you obtained your debating skills from ‘Dave Barry’s Guide to Life’ or you’ve been stepping out for some stick blasting with Donald Miller again.
September 3rd, 2009 at 6:11 am
BTW, I have hit on this before, but the TNIV is not more gender accurate. The text is rich in gender and to be more gender accurate means you reflect, in accuracy, to that of the original.
The TNIV is less gender accurate. To make another standard of accuracy anything other than the text is a part of the problem. As well, God is not concerned with being Gender Neutral, the Greek is full of being masculine or feminine. Rather, God is concerned with accuracy of the text.
Thus, those so concerned for this Gender Neutrality, are arguing despite the text of the Bible, not because of it.
September 3rd, 2009 at 7:25 am
Derick – I have no interest in debating the particularities of whether or not the TNIV is a good translation. I generally use the NRSV myself these days, since that is what my seminary requires. My point above was simply to illustrate why those of us concerned about gender inclusivity are in fact driven by a desire for faithfully representing the intent of scripture and NOT by some “liberal” or “feminist fascist” agenda (whatever the hell that means). If you or anyone else chooses to believe otherwise, there’s not much we can say to convince you – though I’d warn you that it’s generally pretty difficult to claim that you know someone else’s motivations better than they themselves do.
As for God’s anatomy, of course Jesus was male, but do you honestly think that God the Father or God the Holy Spirit are likewise anatomically male (or anatomical at all)? Yes, the Bible frequently uses male metaphors for God, but I personally think it’s extremely important to recognize that these are exactly that – metaphors. The minute we think that our human languages can capture who God is in God’s self, we’ve made an idol out of it. For more on this I’d recommend Pete Rollin’s book “How (Not) to Speak of God”, or perhaps just C.S. Lewis’ “Footnote to all Prayers”:
He whom I bow to only knows to whom I bow
When I attempt the ineffable Name, murmuring Thou,
And dream of Pheidian fancies and embrace in heart
Symbols (I know) which cannot be the thing Thou art.
Thus always, taken at their word, all prayers blaspheme
Worshipping with frail images a folk-lore dream,
And all men in their praying, self-deceived, address
The coinage of their own unquiet thoughts, unless
Thou in magnetic mercy to Thyself divert
Our arrows, aimed unskilfully, beyond desert;
And all men are idolators, crying unheard
To a deaf idol, if Thou take them at their word.
Take not, O Lord, our literal sense. Lord, in thy great
Unbroken speech our limping metaphor translate.
September 3rd, 2009 at 7:38 am
Regina – since I’m not really a Dave Barry fan, and I don’t read much Donald Miller either so I’m afraid I really don’t know what you’re talking about. It sounded like you were trying to insult me, but I’m afraid it just went over my head. My apologies. I’m sure it was a very snarky and stinging reply and I hate for you to have wasted it on me.
September 3rd, 2009 at 8:39 am
Mike,
The issue is not about accuracy. If you believe gender neutral is being “more accurate” then you have an issue with the Greek and Hebrew, not the English translations, your problem is with the Bible itself as it is, if you have studied Greek and Hebrew, very specific in gender.
Secondly, again, my statement was a reaction to an off the cuff statement by someone here. I do, though, believe God reveals himself in ways and in those ways we should worship Him. That is my point.
Thirdly, the limitations of human language is there. Yet, that does not mean that God fails to accurately use human language. Otherwise, we would be unable to explain anything about God. God uses language and in how He reveals Himself. We will say that language cannot fully grasp God, but it can accurately grasp God. The phrase in theology is called perspicuity, which I do hold towards. Yes, I would say that those who deny perspicuity are liberals.
Even in all this, we need to be careful in changing how God has revealed Himself. Doing such we take Liberties to the nature of God which we are not authorized in doing.
As stated before, the issue in this debate has nothing to do with being gender accurate, rather the TNIV is less accurate. Your side seems to want to make light of this for cultural reasons rather than theological.
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:13 am
I’m not sure I have much to add, other to express my own anger at seeing the Dobsonites “win” this battle. Thank you for posting.
September 3rd, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Mark,
I am not a Dobsonite, I probably have not heard James Dobson in almost 10 years. My concern is with the accuracy of the text. I have yet to hear one defender of the TNIV or a Gender Neutral translation from an accuracy point of view. Those who have a problem with non-gender-neutral Bibles have a problem with the Greek and Hebrew, not with James Dobson.
September 3rd, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Well Derick, I guess according to your definition I am a “liberal”. Frankly, I’m more than okay with that. (I’ve long since left the world where that word is only ever used as a term of dismissal, condemnation, and/or derision.)
September 3rd, 2009 at 1:01 pm
posted too soon…
anyway, as for accuracy, the question for me in regards to gender is not necessarily what specific Greek or Hebrew words the text uses, but what the intent was in using them, i.e. were they intended inclusively nor not? My example of “brethren” above is precisely the kind of thing I mean. Did Paul use this word inclusively or not? If so, then I think it’s appropriate for some translations to reflect Paul’s intent in English through inclusive language, regardless of whether the Greek words are gender-specific or not. It basically comes down to whether you think we should translate literalistically, word-for-word, or whether we should translate for meaning into dynamically equivalent idioms.
Personally, I want both. For scholarly study I usually prefer a more literalistic translation where I can figure out the idioms and dynamic equivalences on my own (or with the help of commentators). But for liturgical and devotional purposes I prefer translations that translate for overall meaning, as this is less confusing/misleading for the average lay person (provided you agree with the general theology of the translation committee, which granted, is probably a good reason for me not to trust the NIV in general). Bottom line, no translation is ever going to be perfect, so the best we can do (if you can’t read the originals) is to compare lots of different versions.
September 3rd, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Derrick said, “I have yet to hear one defender of the TNIV or a Gender Neutral translation from an accuracy point of view.”
I’ve already seen a couple of posts (especially by Mike Clawson) that attempt to do precisely this, but I guess they fail by your understanding of “accuracy.” I probably shouldn’t even bother, but here goes….
For example, (and I’ll speak more of examples that convey understanding than of actual Greek), if the Greek word previously translated “Brothers” is clearly intended for a mixed audience, it is appropriate to say “brothers and sisters” to a modern audience that does not understand “brothers” to include women, even if the original word was specifically male. There was nothing inherently “masculine” about the original intent to be retained, in such an example.
This is, of course, an interpretive decision, and thus there is room for debate. Another philosophy of interpretation–one you would advocate, I assume—suggest retaining “brothers” not because of any intent not to include women, but of a desire not to add interpretive layers of one’s own between the original text and the modern reader. This can be considered faithful, but I would argue fails to convey the intent to the reader who does not know Greek enough to understand what the original intent was in the first place.
I’m certainly not trying to argue against a more literal “word-for-word” interpretive philosophy. Rather, I feel the strong need to defend the idea that a philosophy such as that employed by the TNIV is NOT inappropriate, and in fact succeeds better at conveying that original intent of the texts to some readers than other translations would do.
As to the “Dobson” comment, I stand by it. He and his ilk have put tremendous effort into attacking the TNIV, such that statements like “those who have a problem with non-gender-neutral Bibles have a problem with the Greek and Hebrew” are somehow considered appropriate. This is most certainly NOT a problem with the original texts or languages of the Scripture. It is fundamentally about how to convey the meanings of precisely those texts to a modern audience that simply doesn’t understand “brothers” in the same way that another audience perhaps once did.
September 3rd, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Mike,
You are using intentions in some places in which you cannot be assured. As noted, there are some areas scholars agree on but you claim that the intentions are devoid of the words used, that is wrong. The word used is paramount to conveying the intention as noted below.
I have pointed out places where most gender neutral translations err, you have not addressed them. Yet, even your example of adelphos (brethren) is sometimes translated ecclessia for the same reason you cite, “This is the intention of the word.” The problem is that there is a theological reason for using adelphos as opposed to ecclessia in translating. When we object, some say “That was the intention.” Yes, no doubt the intention was to talk about those in the church, but adelphos portrays an aspect of this relationship not captured in ecclessia.
I would contend the same goes for the gender. I noted this in the book of Proverbs where making it gender neutral destroys the text in some places and makes it less insightful or deep.
As well, changing from 2nd person to 3rd person often destroys the meaning of a text as I noted before.
For some reason, if you find one exception, I feel you believe that gender neutral is valid. The issue is not one issue, the problem is 1) the philosophical strategy of the Gender-neutral translations and 2) not the agreements (like in the case of the HCSB.
September 3rd, 2009 at 3:35 pm
I think Derick has a point when he says “adelphos portrays an aspect of this relationship not captured in ecclessia.” As I mention in my own post, my doctoral advisor Scott Bartchy is in agreement (see this article of his in Sojourners.
Sibling language was important to the early Jesus movement and the unfortunate creativity (church, beloved, friends, comrades [yes, comrades!!], etc.) in translating adelphos has hidden that social and theological statement. Where I depart from Derick, is in the fact that I see no harm in translating adelphos as “brother and sister.” To the contrary, this is the meaning behind the phrase in most instances and thus, I believe we should let contemporary female readers understand that Paul meant to include them as siblings when used the word adelphos.
September 3rd, 2009 at 5:32 pm
I had a professor who once posed this question about this and other sexuality/gender issues that conservatives tend to get so upset about: “Is that really what the gospel is all about? Sex? Gender?”
Why, oh why do we get so hung up on Jesus’ genitals and whether or not that should be circumscribed to God? Seems like a grand adventure in missing the point to me.
Oh, and I love that this discussion is being principally argued (at least in the latest comments) by men. Nice.
September 3rd, 2009 at 6:35 pm
I have never had the pleasure of reading the TNIV, although now I want to. But let me ask, so does all of the TNIV nuetralize ALL gender references or just in the spots where its clear that although male language it being used, it is meant to include both genders? For instance, is Proverbs 31 really written in general neutral language as someone up there claimed? Can someone clarify for me exactly which parts are gender inclusive and which retain a clear male/female description?
September 3rd, 2009 at 7:31 pm
No Tia, it doesn’t neutralize all gender references (and definitely not in Proverbs 31). I’ve used the TNIV quite a bit in the past, and I’ve never noticed it anywhere except where it was clearly meant to include both men and women, though I can’t say I’ve done an in-depth study of the issue.
September 3rd, 2009 at 7:47 pm
I was really impressed with the book How To Choose a Bible Translation for All It’s Worth by Mark Strauss and Gordon Fee, especially the way the book dealt with the Greek term ‘anthropos’– hope the spelling is close — referring to mankind not males. My fear is that we’ll look back on this day about a dozen years from now and decide that this was an overreaction. The TNIV was not the translation equivalent of New Coke.
September 4th, 2009 at 12:29 am
I actually have read the TNIV and the Gender Neutral Bible Controversy by Poythress and Grudem and then I interviewed Packer, Waltke and Fee.
Here is my favourite part of this book, but let me expalin the background first,
On June 2, 1997, when the initial Colorado Springs Guidelines were agreed on, Guideline B 1 originally read,
“Brother” (adelphos) and “brothers” (adelphoi) should not be changed to “brother(s) and sister(s).”
In The TNIV and the GNB, 2004, p. 425 – 426, Poythress and Grudem write, “Examination of further lexicological data (as indicated in chapter 12) showed that this guideline was too narrow.”
The following refined guideline was approved on Sept. 9, 1997,
“Brother” adelphos should not be changed to “brother or sister”; however, the plural adelphoi can be translated “brothers and sisters” where the context makes clear that the author is referring to both men and women.
What was the ‘further lexicological data’? In Poythress and Grudem’s own words,
“in fact, the major Greek lexicons for over 100 years have said that adelphoi, which is the plural of the word adelphos, ‘brother” sometimes means “brothers and sisters” (see BAGD, 1957 and 1979, Liddell-Scott-Jones, 1940 and even 1869).
This material was new evidence to those of us who wrote the May 27 guidlines – we weren’t previously aware of this pattern of Greek usage outside the Bible. Once we saw these examples and others like them, we felt we had to make some change in the guidelines.”
Do Grudem and Poythress actually say that those who wrote the gender guidelines had never looked at the ‘gender terms’ in Liddell – Scott or BAGD? Do they really call Liddell – Scott (1869) new evidence?
By their own admission, these men were of an age where they had already established their own personal theology, and had presumed to write theology for others, without ever learning to use a variety of the most standard Greek lexicons. They came to Colorado Springs with their gender guidelines already prepared, based on a narrow view of what the Greek said, and attempted to make these guidelines binding on the Christian community.
In fact, it is worth noting that adelphos in the plural, that would be adelphoi, refers to named brothers and sisters in Greek. For example, Cleopatra and Ptolemy, and Orestes and Elektra are called adelphoi. It clearly means brothers and sisters. This is a known fact.
I have examined every statement on gender language and have to agree with Waltke that they did not sacrifice accuracy. Other points,
1. Aner – Plato and many other Greek authors used aner for both male and female members of a city.
2. Adam and anthropos – used in Numbers 31 for 30,000 young girls who had never touched a male. It appears that adam/anthropos actually means “human.”
3. Sons – Luthers Bible never used the term “sons of God” but only “children of God.” Just as we say the “children of Abraham” or the “children of Israel” we should also say the “children of God.” Unless of course, we think that women lost status in the New Testament.
4. Fathers – pateres used in Hebrews 11 for Moses parents. Perhaps we should believe that the word really meant only father, and that Moses had two fathers. That would be funny.
5. 1 Tim. 5:8 “If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” Not even one masculine pronoun in the Greek. Many masculine pronouns have been inserted in English and represent exactly nothing in Greek, since it does not require pronouns everywhere that English does.
6. 1 Tim. 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority. (TNIV) This is directly taken from Calvin, although Grudem called it a “novel and suspect” translation. It appears that Grudem has not read Calvin’s commentaries.
7. Propitiation vs atonement. Atonement was a term coined by Tyndale but rejected by the ESV and used by the TNIV.
8. I can’t find one single complaint about the TNIV that holds water, and I went through the TNIV and the Gender Neutral Bible controversy with a fine tooth comb. I could not ascertain whether Grudem and Poythress ever referred to a Greek lexicon throughout the entire book. So I asked Dr. Packer why he had endorsed it and he told me that he had not taken time to read it.
September 4th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Ok, so let me get this straight. The TNIV refers to all obvious male and female characters as he/she, but only highlights where both men and women are being addressed based on the original context? What the hell is all the fuss about then? Does it sound so fantastical to the “male-only language” crowd that God’s directions and promises were written to women too?
September 5th, 2009 at 10:51 am
With respect to gender terms, the English language has already changed. For example, when sending a letter to a local newspaper editor, I no longer use the words “man, men, he, him, or his” when referring to both men and women. Instead, I change my sentence structure in order to use the words “person, people, they, them, or theirs.” So the sentence, “When a man wants a pay raise, he must ask for it,” becomes “When people want pay raises, they must ask for them.”
My second language, Indonesian, does not face this gender related challenge. It has a word for children is “anak-anak.” The word for male is “laki-laki.” The word for female is “perempuan.” So, to say “sons” or “daughters,” you have to modify the nouns with the adjectives and call them, “male children” and ‘female children” (“anak-anak laki-laki” and “anak-anak perempuan”).
So, how would you translate the word “sons” in the phrase “sons of God” into Indonesian?
If you translate word-for-word, then you end up with, “anak-anak laki-laki.” However, this phrase excludes daughters from the meaning of the original phrase. Closer to the *meaning* of the original *word* would be the less direct translation “anak-anak” which means “children.”
Is the NIV allowed to adapt to the most popular use of gender terms?
Those saying “yes” desire to most accurately communicate the meanings of the original Greek and Hebrew *words* to the most modern audience. They understand the “cultural battle” for the historic use of gender terms has been lost. They are accommodating the new linguistic landscape. They are following the same principles used to translate the Bible into Indonesian.
Those answering “no” are still engaged in the culture-war to preserve the historic gender inclusive use of male terms. They impose archaic linguistic gender conventions of Greeks and Hebrews on a modern audience that no longer follows those conventions. The same semantic word-for-word correspondence applied to translating the Bible into Indonesian would exclude women from the meaning of many passages in the Indonesian Bible.
September 6th, 2009 at 6:20 am
YYP had a good point – Greek, after all, has a gender-neutral third-person singular pronoun, and English does not.
The argument should not be against “Divisive” religious leaders and publishers but against those who control the language. Initiate a good English gender-neutral third-person singular equivalent pronoun, and use it everywhere so that we can have an accurate English translation.
New and foreign words are introduced every day – see discussion and alternatives at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_pronoun
September 6th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Trying to add a functional pronoun to the English language that would somehow be helpful in clarifying issues about Bible translation will probably happen about the same time that Hugo Chavez and Sarah Palin have a love child! If reality were actually a factor here (and anywhere else) I’d have to say that you’re not far off the mark Arthur; idealism is not always a bad thing. Unfortunately, for the delightfully naive and pure of intention, this ‘present, emerging debate’ doesn’t want to hear a rational or passionate argument from someone who might actually care. No, They want to hear/argue ‘down and dirty politics;’ chant nasty pro-game slogans and use barroom linguistics to justify their one-sided, poorly-articulated philosophy of??? For lack of a clear asnwer (FWI-which is something else they done’t believe in either) I’m goign to have to say “God Knows What?” Hint: they only know that it isn’t: politically or Biblically conservative….
My scouting time here is long over and I see no reason to raise your listing; you now rank between a skinhead brotherhood and a middle-eastern ‘dating site!’ Sounds about right doesn’t it?
September 6th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
Either your attempts at insults really are as strange as they seem, or else I am just a complete ignoramus when it comes to understanding these sorts of jibes. (Most likely the latter.) Forgive me, but what is this comment even supposed to mean? I’m at a complete loss.
September 7th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
I disagree. Should Matt 24:33 read, “Learn a lesson from the fig tree: When her branches…..” just because suke (“fig tree”)is feminine in Greek? (As it happens, “fig tree” is feminine and “tree” is neuter.)
As I’ve written about (“Why Girls Are Neuter In German”), there are two uses of gender in languages like Greek, but only one in English. When we confuse the two, I think we do a disservice to translation.
September 8th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Okay Mike, as much as I enjoyed hearing you call yourself an ignoramous, I will concede that the jokes you didn’t get were actually targeted to other spectators–who did find them funny. Although….I don’t think you were being honest about not knowing who Donald Miller is; I’m sure I saw a copy of ‘Blue Like Jazz’ on your bookshelf….
Don’t bother trying to formulate a reply; I’m about ‘three days past bored’ here and have moved on to an actual Christian blog.
It’s very interesting and informative, you might want to try it sometime.
September 9th, 2009 at 6:07 am
“Don’t bother trying to formulate a reply; I’m about ‘three days past bored’ here and have moved on…”
Thanks be to God.
September 9th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Gosh, I’m impressed, I had no idea any of you even knew how to pray!!….although, I’m not sure how much God will appreciate the malice.
September 10th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Sara: in case you’re still on this thread and I was the Chris (from comment 4) you were addressing, maybe I wasn’t clear. I agree with you. This is idiotic move on Zondervan’s part, not on the part of people who are upset by it. Zondervan’s whole premise (unchanging word of God) is what I’m saying is ridiculous.
September 10th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Actually, I’ve been praying for you since my first visit to this site a few days ago. That’s what the Bible (in any translation) says we should do for one another. Obviously you have been deeply hurt by people in church leadership. For that I am truly sorry. But the people on this site are not the ones who hurt you, and wishing lightning strikes on them will not heal your pain. Only God can do that. No malice here, but thanks for judging me based on four words that were meant to express thankfulness that you were moving on to something that would be more pleasant for you.
September 10th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
Debbie, In case you don’t notice the time on this post, it is ‘post-olive’ branch. In other words, written after my comments to you on the Emergent Village page. It is no secret that I have been hurt by people in Church Leadership, and as I mentioned previously there are also people on this site who have hurt several friends of mine. While I was arguing with my Catholic friend about the book of James and it’s dubious place in the NT, I saw an advertisement on the sidebar for some ‘Emergent’ women’s event and even though I hadn’t thought about it in years, a waft of very unpleasant memories came flooding back. Let’s just say that hormones have alot more control over us than we would like to admit, and my pre-menopausal juices started flowing and I was able to find this site just in time to spew.
By nature, I find I am too lazy and too laid-back to sustain a significant level of animosity for very long, which is probably why I am not trying to think of something wicked, cutting or humourous to say to amuse my meagre following. I am also intensely curious and creative and I find that negative emotions damage both processes. Oh, and by the way, you people need to develop a sense of humour or at least a mid-level B.S. meter; If someone mentions that golf course lightning comment one more time as if it were meant to be serious–I will have to start telling feminist jokes.
Not that I doubt your sincerity Debbie, but your little send-off sounded suspisciously like a cleaned up ‘good riddance!’ to me, and my B.S. meter works at an optimum level–I have 3 boys. If I were indeed mistaken, please accept my apologies. As for God healing me, I’ll have to keep hoping. I still suffer from post-traumatic stress from my abuses at the hands of women in ministry–and I haven’t been involved in a church for nearly 8 years. My faith in God has remained intact and I have several blog buddies who enjoy a good heated debate–and don’t take me too seriously! I will make an attempt to keep my overactive ADD induced sarcastic sensibilities for the boys….
September 11th, 2009 at 4:10 am
Thanks for taking the time to explain, Regina. I can definitely relate to the perimenopausal hormonal shifts and to how it feels to be hurt by church leadership. PTS is an excellent way to describe it. I will keep your continued healing in prayer and would appreciate your prayers for my human frailties as well…By the way, I’m curious to know who “you people” refers to. I’m not a regular here – just clicked on a link as you did -but you are lumping me in with a category, and I don’t even know what that category is. All I see on this site are many people who have been hurt by the church and who are responding to that hurt in in their own ways. May God grant us all the grace to bind up one another’s wounds and offer words that encourage. There is hope for healing and reconciliation within the body of Christ.
September 11th, 2009 at 7:39 am
Hi Debbie. My ‘You People’ reference was meant for anyone present who would think that the golf course comment was even halfway serious—my kids used to say it all the time when they thought someone was being a little bit naughty or crossing that invisible line. It seemed to be taken out of context on purpose by Mike and Julie and made an issue of–hence the eye-roll!
If you haven’t been here long, be careful–I’m just a hormonal pussycut with loyalty issues and a bad case of PTSD–there are others out there who make hurting women a full-time sport.
To be honest, I did not see the names of the people I remember being so awful to Gerda (Other than Mike and Julie) which is probably why I’m still here.
Thank you for your prayers.
September 12th, 2009 at 8:18 am
Regina – While you are perfectly in the right to flame and disagree with anything said here. It would be helpful if you could frame your critique in constructive terms. If you hate me, it would be appreciated if you would explain why instead of calling me names and saying that God wants to strike me dead. You obviously have formed an opinion and a grudge based on something I don’t know about. Did I disagree with you or your friend before, is that your issue? Are you just offended that I exist? Coming in with attacks that make little sense to anyone doesn’t lead to conversation. If all you want to do is get your hate off your chest, just say so. But this is a site for discussion and we would like to discuss.
September 12th, 2009 at 11:39 am
I’m tired of this Julie–you need to grow up or find a different career. Apart from a few long dead relatives, I don’t hate anybody. I am a very peaceful woman who hates injustice and abuse and although I have difficulty believing that you have no idea who I’m speaking about, I also have no idea how many other people you’ve verbally assaulted so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately I am not at liberty to share my friend’s story, but what I will say is that you, your husband, and many other equally insensitive bloggers verbally horse-whipped a woman who suffered through war, torture, rape, the murder of her parents and countless other horrors that most of us cannot even fathom! Why? Because an in-depth audit of your archives (thank you Padre!) shows a gigantic and ugly prejudice of anyone who is brave enough to profess a traditional evangelical bent–and she professed rather loudly. Because you have no original thoughts that have not been spoon-fed to you by one of the 98.4 radically left-of-center professors you idolize, you missed a fabulous opportunity to crawl out of your politically correct prison and learn something real! (demographics are a bitch aren’t they?)
What never ceases to amaze me about this site is that you publish controversial and inflammatory articles and then get all pissy when somebody gets upset; have you been so indoctrinated and brain-washed that you actually believe that there is no other possible opinion?
The immaturity and childishness of your replies indicates that you are not interested in the people who come here or the reasons why they get upset. That last little hissy fit sounded like something off my granddaughters MySpace page. I have not called you any names, I have not prayed for lightning to strike you, (by the way, my adolescent boys used to use that joke–I made the grievous mistake of assuming that the average level of intelligence here was above the second-grade–my bad.) And if I am a bit incensed because you needlessly hurt a friend of mine, I think I’m allowed to handle it in whatever way I choose.
Incidentally, I have met some nice people here who could see that I was hurting and actually took the time to ask why? It’s called caring, maybe you should look it up–it’s page 166 in the Longman Modern English Dictionary.
September 12th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Regina,
Where is Christ in your comments? I am having a hard time finding Him in the way you’re lashing out at people over things that they are not responsible for. I’m sorry you’re in pain, but transmitting that pain to other people isn’t going to make it better.
September 12th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
I just had an interesting email from a gentleman who has a radio show somewhere near where you live and although I am a bit concerned at how easy he was able to find me and contact me, his information was very interesting and I thought you might like to here it before you bother mustering up another….response.
Apparently I have been amusing an entire staff of radio execs for several days and they absolutely love my writing. They think I should be doing it for money–imagine that! What they also told me was that since my advent to the ‘emerging women’ site, the readership has quadrupled….
There was no need to spell it out; it didn’t take my pea-brain that long to figure out that I’m being used. Now I’m the one who feels like an idiot….when I go back and read the incredibly dull, dry, elementary drivel that passes for conversation….all I can say is good on ya’ Mr. and Mrs. Clawson–you got me!….and if you ever want me again, it’s 75 bucks an hour.
September 13th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Regina – I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. And obviously nothing I write will be read by you apart from your preconceived prejudices about me. Thank you for the unsolicited advice, and I hope you are enjoying your popularity. Peace.
September 14th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
Oh and Jessica: FYI–if you’re lookin for Christ, he’s not here. In fact, I doubt that he’s ever been here. I might be out on a limb here but you might want to try the Bible; preferably one of the ones that’s actually been translated from the Greek instead of the new collaborative version by Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem; they tried to entice buyers with a forward by Hillary Clinton but that silly husband of hers insisted on paraphrasing the Song of Solomon–with pictures of himself. (That’s why it’s the first Bible with an 18A rating!) Good hunting honey!
September 15th, 2009 at 5:57 am
Where is Christ in this conversation? Anywhere each of us would like to invite him to be.
September 15th, 2009 at 9:51 am
Debbie, as you were kind and compassionate to me when I admittedly did not deserve it— and as I can number the women who have been so in my life on one hand, I feel bad that you will now be exposed to the reality of what really goes on behind the makeup, the homemade Bible covers and the phoney smile of the average female Leader. It isn’t pretty, it isn’t remotely God-like, and it’s all about ME!ME!ME!
I’ve been a fan of C.S. Lewis since I was a child, and I didn’t stop at the chronicles of Narnia; My next exposure to the Genius Jack was the “Problam Of Pain” followed by the “The Great Divorce.” In later years I have been both amused and inspired by transcripts of his correspondences–which of course has liberated my gift sarcasm….which I believe has it’s place in the arguments and discussions of any serious spiritual matter. At any rate, I would take Jack’s observances over any I’ve heard here…..
September 15th, 2009 at 11:12 am
Jack was indeed one of the greats. My first exposure to his work for adults was The Screwtape Letters, which I found to be remarkably insightful.
If you would like a safe person with whom to work out some of your pain, you may contact me at StillWatersMin@aol.com. That’s not meant to preclude whatever you feel you need to say in this forum or to be patronizing (matronizing?) in any way. It’s just an offer of spiritual friendship from one Christian to another. No agenda, no strings, no audience other than the Holy Spirit.
September 16th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Why thank you Debbie, I appreciate the offer–I’m not sure what the motivation is behind it, but it’s a thoughtful gesture neverhtheless.
I’m too tired to play games today– plus I’m behind in my work so unfortunately, I have nothing humourous to say. I’ll look you up in a few days Debbie. Thanks.
September 16th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Regina – My main motivation is that I feel God is asking me to extend the invitation. Another reason is that I’m not necessarily planning to visit here again after today…and I think I will miss you. Especially your thoughts about music, kimonos, and Jack. Peace to you. And if I don’t hear from you, know that you will remain in my prayers.